The examination of this course is in the form of a written report which should describe the current status of the chosen subject area. It should also make clear which articles were read, and what they contributed to the development of the subject. The report should be accessible to a fellow physicist working in neighbouring field. It is not necessary to include the connection to the (scientific outcome of the) student's PhD project. The report should be between 8,000 and 12,000 words. This report should be submitted electronically by the PhD supervisor to the director of graduate studies, who will appoint an examiner among the faculty members. The examiner should be distinct from the supervisor, but may consult the supervisor where appropriate. The examiner should assess the report based on the following grading rubric:
- Context: does the report motivate the research area?
- Statement of scope: does the report define its scope, and delineate its boundaries?
- Coherence: does the report reflect a coherent choice of articles that explain the development of the subject?
- Presentation quality: is the report well-written and accessible to a physicist in a neighbouring field?
The examiner should mark these questions by “yes” or “no”. Reports marked with all yes are graded as “pass”. All other reports are graded as “fail”. The examiner should provide a short justification of the grade to the student. Students receiving the grade fail have the right to submit a corrected version of the report, following the recommendations of the examiner, who will thereupon reevaluate the report. Once failed reports should be resubmitted to the examiner within 2 months of receiving the grade. Twice failed reports result in a final grade of fail.